Davis v. Desha County Arkansas Circuit Court et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting deft's motion for summary judgment; denying 93 Motion for Reconsideration; dismissing the case with prejudice; and certifying that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/3/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION WILLIE GASTER DAVIS, JR. ADC # 109028 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:09-cv-00338 BSM/JTR SKIPPY LEEK, Desha County District Clerk DEFENDANT ORDER The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray [Doc. No. 76] were received and adopted in November 2010. The defendant then moved to reconsider the adoption of the Magistrate’s recommended disposition on the grounds that he never received the recommended disposition. That motion was granted [Doc. No. 82]. Two months later, plaintiff responded [Doc. No. 85] the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record, including the plaintiff’s objections, it is concluded that the proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 61] is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 93] of the magistrate’s order [Doc. No. 91] denying his motion to amend his complaint, to grant him an extension of time to file, and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, is DENIED. 2. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2011. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?